pharmacy education journal articles

Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning

About the journal, aims & scope.

Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning is devoted to dissemination of high quality, peer-reviewed scholarship relevant to all areas of pharmacy education —promoting educational research excellence. The Journal maintains a particular focus in two major areas: pharmacy faculty development in the scholarship of teaching and learning and the scholarship of interprofessional pharmacy education. With diverse editorial board members, authors, and peer reviewers, the Journal engages a variety of stakeholders in pharmacy education: educators, researchers, faculty practitioners, as well as interprofessional colleagues. Diverse author contributions are within original research, review articles, commentaries, and letters categories.

Original research topics include, but are not limited to:

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: teaching/learning strategies; interprofessional education

Quality Improvement - assessment of programmatic/curricular outcomes

Curricular Revision – design, implementation, evaluation

New school/program strategies

Attitudes/perceptions within pharmacy education

Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning is devoted to dissemination of high quality, peer-reviewed scholarship relevant to all areas of pharmacy education —promoting educational research excellence. The Journal maintains a particular focus in two major areas: pharmacy faculty development in the …

Article publishing charge for open access

Editor-in-Chief

James schreiber, phd.

Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America

Latest published

Most downloaded, most popular, pharmacy student perceptions of academically dishonest behavior in skills activities, pharmacist perceptions of continuing professional development and goal development in a community health-system, impact of frequency of spaced retrieval using repeat testing on asthma pharmacotherapy knowledge retention, students' perception of the use of artificial intelligence (ai) in pharmacy school, evaluating the impact of a decision-making game on empathy development in pharmacy students from the dual perspectives of the patient and pharmacist, understanding of pharmacy students' knowledge of cannabis use disorders in recreational vs non-recreational use states, evaluating the use of virtual simulation training to support pharmacy students' competency development in conducting dispensing tasks, escape rooms in pharmacy education: more than just a game, more from currents in pharmacy teaching and learning, introductory letter from cptl editor-in-chief james b. schreiber, ph.d., currents in pharmacy teaching and learning diversity pledge.

Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

The American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education (the Journal) is the official scholarly publication of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP). Its purpose is to document and advance pharmaceutical education in the United States and internationally. The Journal editor is Gayle A. Brazeau, PhD, professor in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Marshall University, Huntington, WV. Dr. Brazeau is the seventh editor of the Journal (2014-present), which was founded in 1937 (see History).

Twelve issues of the Journal are published online each year. The Journal is a free-access publication and no subscription is required to view articles.

Access the Journal

All expressions of opinion and statements of supposed fact appearing in the Journal are not to be regarded as necessarily expressing the policy or views of the Editor or of AACP. All questions, comments, requests, and complaints should be directed to the editorial office at [email protected] .

Frequently Asked Questions

In 2023, archived articles from volume 87 Issue 1 through to the 2023 Volume Issue 4 will be freely available on https://www.ajpe.org/ . 

Recently accepted articles and all future articles will be made available on ScienceDirect (https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/american-journal-of-pharmaceutical-education) and the new journal homepage, https://www.aacpajpe.org/ .

For those individuals who are at an AACP institutional member, you will be able to access AJPE in the same way that your library provides you access to other Journals, regardless of whether you are an individual AACP member.

AACP individual members get full text access by going to www.aacp.org, News and Media, then hovering over American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education . You would then initiate the connection by choosing Member Login. Remember, if you do not authenticate at AACP first, the full text online content of the Journal will not be presented to you since the journal site will not recognize you as a member with access to the content.

Article abstracts are freely available to the public, however, full-text online access is reserved for AACP members and journal subscribers. Individual articles are available for purchase. For information about becoming an AACP member, click here . Non-member subscription options will be added at a future date.

There are a few ways in which you can access full text for new articles starting in May.

If your university or institution is a member of AACP or subscribes to the ScienceDirect Freedom Collection, you can access the journal as you would any other journal article through your institution, so long as your device is connected to the institutional network.

If you are an individual member of AACP, and not affiliated with an academic institution as described above, you will need to visit the AACP website at www.aacp.org , hover over News and Media, then American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. Next you will select Member Login. The website will recognize you as a member of AACP entitled to full text access. Not a member and want to subscribe, consider becoming an AACP member . If you have any questions on how to access the Journal, please email [email protected] . 

There will be no fee to submit your manuscript.

Authors will have two options to publish their manuscripts: 

• (Default) as a subscription article available to all AACP members and AJPE subscribers. There is no fee associated with this option. 
• As an open access article for which there is an Article Publishing Charge (APC). In 2023, that APC is $2,400. 

There is no change in where you can submit your manuscript to AJPE: https://www.ajpe.org/page/submit/a/manuscript

You will have the option to include:

• Color Figures are no extra cost,
• Graphical Abstracts ,
• Supplemental Information embedded within your published article,
• Article Highlights or bullet points that help increase the discoverability of your article via search engines. There is also greater flexibility on the number of references that can be cited in your manuscript.

The AJPE Editorial Team will still be responsible for managing the review of your manuscript. AJPE Editors will now have access to a larger pool of potential reviewers for your manuscript through the Standalone Find Reviewers Tool and Scopus.

There will be increased exposure to a global audience as your paper will now be hosted on ScienceDirect , the world’s premier platform of peer-reviewed literature. ScienceDirect has 1 billion annual visits and over 17,000 licenses around the globe.

Your accepted manuscript, on average, will be available within 48 hours in pre-release format. There will be faster time to the final published article with article-based publishing that will involve proof corrections through a state-of-the-art online proofing tool.

You and your authors will now have access to the following services:

• There will be automated delivery of your article to PubMed and PubMed Central.
• You will receive a ShareLink for your article, a customized link to your article on ScienceDirect that provides 50 days’ free access to all readers.
• You will be able to track the impact of your article through PlumX metrics . 
• You will have free resources to promote your research.
• You will have access to the Elsevier for Authors and Access to 24/7 Support Teams .

There is no change in this process as you will receive an invitation to review a manuscript via email from the AJPE Editorial team.

You will have access to the Reviewer Resources and the 24/7 Support Teams . In addition, you will now have the availability of and integration of your reviews with the Elsevier Reviewer Hub. As a reviewer, you will be able to track your activity, gain credit and rewards for your work. Reviewers will be able to get certificates plus free access to ScienceDirect and Scopus.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Journal Proposal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Journal Description

• Open Access — free for readers, with article processing charges (APC) paid by authors or their institutions.
• High Visibility:  indexed within ESCI (Web of Science) , PubMed , PMC , Embase , and other databases .
• Rapid Publication: manuscripts are peer-reviewed and a first decision is provided to authors approximately 22.9 days after submission; acceptance to publication is undertaken in 3.7 days (median values for papers published in this journal in the first half of 2024).
• Recognition of Reviewers:  Reviewers who provide timely, thorough peer-review reports receive vouchers entitling them to a discount on the APC of their next publication in any MDPI journal, in appreciation of the work done.

Latest Articles

Journal Menu

• Pharmacy Home
• Aims & Scope
• Editorial Board
• Reviewer Board
• Topical Advisory Panel
• Instructions for Authors

Special Issues

• Sections & Collections
• Article Processing Charge
• Indexing & Archiving
• Editor’s Choice Articles
• Most Cited & Viewed
• Journal Statistics
• Journal History
• Journal Awards
• Society Collaborations
• Editorial Office

Journal Browser

• arrow_forward_ios Forthcoming issue arrow_forward_ios Current issue
• Vol. 12 (2024)
• Vol. 11 (2023)
• Vol. 10 (2022)
• Vol. 9 (2021)
• Vol. 8 (2020)
• Vol. 7 (2019)
• Vol. 6 (2018)
• Vol. 5 (2017)
• Vol. 4 (2016)
• Vol. 3 (2015)
• Vol. 2 (2014)
• Vol. 1 (2013)

Highly Accessed Articles

Latest books, e-mail alert.

Conferences

Topical collections, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Search Close search
• Find a journal
• Search calls for papers
• Journal Suggester
• Open access publishing

We’re here to help

Find guidance on Author Services

Open access

Vaccine hesitancy educational interventions for medical students: A systematic narrative review in western countries

• Cite this article
• https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2024.2397875

Introduction

Discussion and conclusion, conclusions.

• Supplemental material
• Acknowledgements

Disclosure statement

Additional information.

• Full Article
• Figures & data
• Supplemental
• Reprints & Permissions
• View PDF PDF

Physician recommendations can reduce vaccine hesitancy (VH) and improve uptake yet are often done poorly and can be improved by early-career training. We examined educational interventions for medical students in Western countries to explore what is being taught, identify effective elements, and review the quality of evidence. A mixed methods systematic narrative review, guided by the JBI framework, assessed the study quality using MERSQI and Cote & Turgeon frameworks. Data were extracted to analyze content and framing, with effectiveness graded using value-based judgment. Among the 33 studies with 30 unique interventions, effective studies used multiple methods grounded in educational theory to teach knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Most interventions reinforced a deficit-based approach (assuming VH stems from misinformation) which can be counterproductive. Effective interventions used hands-on, interactive methods emulating real practice, with short- and long-term follow-ups. Evidence-based approaches like motivational interviewing should frame interventions instead of the deficit model.

• Vaccine hesitancy
• medical student education
• educational interventions
• vaccine uptake
• early-career training
• mixed methods review
• deficit-based approach
• evidence-based approaches
• motivational interviewing
• systematic narrative review

Vaccines protect populations from serious communicable diseases, yet the persistent phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy (VH) presents an escalating challenge to public health. Citation 1 , Citation 2 VH is defined as a motivational state of being conflicted about, or opposed to, getting vaccinated Citation 3 that may lead to a delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability of vaccination services. Citation 4 It has been a World Health Organisation top ten major health concerns since 2019. Citation 5 VH continues to grow in the general population, with worsening childhood and flu vaccine uptake over time Citation 6 , Citation 7 that has declined further in many countries since the COVID pandemic. Citation 8 , Citation 9

Key studies Citation 10 , Citation 11 highlight healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) recommendations as a central strategy for improving population vaccine confidence. Unlike public health policy and media communication, this personal approach allows for discussion of concerns, and may be more effective. Citation 12 , Citation 13 These discussions are complex, challenging, and require specific training and skills to be effective. Citation 13–16 Vaccine recommendation can also differ between HCPs, likely influenced by models of medical training, professional values, and culture; Citation 17–19 and is influenced by HCP VH. Citation 19–21 Grouping interventions for different HCPs together can therefore lose granularity for application, so this study focuses on medical students as proto-doctors.

Addressing this topic in medical school allows for early modification of attitudes, skills, and knowledge that may enhance patient-doctor communications throughout a career. Yet various national curriculum reviews across western cultures show that VH is not often taught – or taught well – in medical schools, resulting in low feelings of preparedness and student VH. Citation 22–26

The most instinctive strategies to navigate these conversations, such as the deficit model, Citation 27 are not necessarily the best. This model, devised in the 1970s as a way to improve public understanding of science, is less of a technique and more of a lens through which decision-making is viewed. Citation 28 , Citation 29 It assumes that patients’ choices are determined by their knowledge – they are refusing vaccines because they have the ‘wrong’ information. Giving them the ‘right’ information therefore enables them to make the ‘right’ choice. Citation 27 This is commonly found elsewhere in medical communication skills teaching, underpinning approaches to information giving in practice. Citation 29–31 Where patients may be encountering a concept for the first time with few pre-conceptions and emotions that may influence a decision, the model has some applications. However, it has come under more recent criticism for this assumption since most decisions are rarely made in a vacuum. Citation 32 , Citation 33 VH is a spectrum but can be categorized into hesitant, delayers/selective refusers and refusers. Citation 14 , Citation 34 For these groups, information given using the deficit model in VH can come across as paternalistic, be ineffective, and even backfire by entrenching hesitant patients further in their views. Citation 13 , Citation 35–38 Alternative models of communication include approaches which take a holistic view, prioritize trust-building, individualize responses, and utilize motivational interviewing techniques. Citation 14 , Citation 34 , Citation 39

Recent reviews Citation 40 , Citation 41 have focused on educational interventions for HCPs, including students globally across a range of healthcare professions. Lip et al. Citation 40 also included professionals and focused on the regulation of emotional reactions of clinicians. Ours explores methods taught, their effectiveness, and most of the studies we identified did not feature in their reviews.

This review selected studies from culturally western nations (Appendix 1). While an imperfect definition, there are important pragmatic differences between western and non-western countries that should not be ignored Citation 42 , Citation 43 and may affect the nature of VH education. Important differences in healthcare systems such as structure, patient profiles, and burden of disease Citation 42 , Citation 44 , Citation 45 may affect the wider relationship and perceptions between patients and HCPs. Patient-doctor communication models in non-western countries may lean toward more collectivist values such as reinforcement of social hierarchy, while individualistic communication models such as mutualism or shared-decision making tend to be less well taught and embedded in non-western medical schools. Citation 46–55 The nature of VH is complex and multi-factorial, rooted in many traits innate to all people regardless of cultural background. However, some differences between western and non-western countries, such as barriers to vaccine access, Citation 56–58 may impact on the context and priorities of educational interventions. Finally, much of the research into novel patient-doctor communication models has only taken place in culturally western nations, Citation 14 , Citation 59–64 so caution should be taken when applying to all cultures. Citation 65

We carried out a systematic narrative review of interventions that included medical students in western culturally similar countries with the aim to synthesize what is being taught about VH, to identify which elements are effective, and to review the quality of evidence available.

Defining the intervention

This review used a mixed methods systematic narrative review with convergent integrated approach (PROSPERO ID = CRD42022320425), guided by the JBI methodological framework. Citation 66 PRISMA Extension for systematic reviews was followed for reporting. A systematic approach was chosen as the research question aims to explore the nature of what is currently taught. The narrative/mixed methods elements were chosen because it was anticipated that educational interventions would be challenging to directly compare against each other due to heterogenous evaluation measures.

Kirkpatrick (KP) levels were used to stratify study outcomes. With a background in assessing the impact of training initiatives in industry, these have been adapted by the Best Evidence Medical Education collaboration to be applied to medical education with widespread use. Citation 67 , Citation 68 While elements of the hierarchy exist, it is not always necessary that patient outcomes are the desired priority – outcomes of evaluation, or that the development of knowledge, attitudes, and skills have inherent value in themselves. Citation 69

Search strategy

We searched for studies that described educational interventions regarding vaccination or VH in medical students. An initial limited search for index terms was undertaken in Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, SCOPUS, and Web of Science with assistance from a medical librarian and subject field experts. This informed the development of keywords for a full search (Appendix 1) in May 2023 (re-ran for updates in December 2023) with no language restrictions and publications from January 2005. Population VH became more discussed in the literature around this time following the Wakefield controversy, Citation 70 , Citation 71 a significant avian influenza outbreak in the Americas and European regions, Citation 72 and the start of social media. References were searched in all selected studies.

Study selection

Inclusion/exclusion criteria were finalized by all authors after initial studies review. Titles and abstracts were screened by one reviewer (PW) after removal of duplicates using EndNote, with 10% of studies screened by all other authors. All full texts selected were assessed against the inclusion criteria by PW and at least one other author. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion.

Critical appraisal/quality assessment

Eligible studies were critically appraised by two independent reviewers for methodological quality using the MERSQI tool Citation 73 (quantitative) and Cote & Turgeon’s framework Citation 74 (qualitative) (Appendix 2). MERSQI has ten items in 6 domains, scoring 3 points in each domain for a maximum score of 18. Studies were deemed low quality (0–6), medium quality, Citation 7–12 and high quality. Citation 13–18 Cote & Turgeon’s framework has 12 questions over 5 domains, each with a judgment-based response of yes/no. We modified this to high/medium/low for more granularity, assigning numerical values of low = 0 points, medium = 1 point, high = 2 points to come to the final overall gradings of low (0–8), medium, Citation 9–16 and high qualities. Citation 17–24 Disagreements were resolved through discussion.

Data charting/extraction

Extracted data was gathered into a team-developed Excel sheet (Appendix 3). Eleven studies were contacted for additional data to determine inclusion/exclusion. Seven responded with the full data requested (Appendix 4), while four did not reply after three attempts. Interventions evaluated with more than one quantitative study were combined and treated as one study with one reference (outlined in the Results table). Where multiple measures existed, the quality score for each was measured in the Results table.

We explored the theoretical approach (whether an intervention was based on any educational theory, and if so how) and framing (the nature and evidence-base of the methods taught) of studies. We also examined whether interventions reinforced a deficit model of communication and alternative approaches. Where this was not clear in the study, this was discussed within the whole research team using the definition outlined above.

Data transformation and synthesis

Where statistical tests were present and correctly used, we have defined p  < .05, effect size > 0.25, and confidence interval not including zero as significant. Quantitative results were transformed into narrative description or interpretation. These ‘qualitized’ data were assembled with the qualitative data based on similarity in meaning to produce a set of integrated findings using a convergent integrated approach. Citation 66

Figure 1. PRISMA diagram for study identification.

Table 1. Summary of content.

Interventions were of generally medium quality with MERSQI scores from 5.5 to 14.5 (median 9.5/18). Interventions aimed to improve medical student knowledge, attitudes, and skills (communication and administration) around vaccines and VH. Taught content and teaching methods were heterogenous. These were generally theorized to improve provider recommendation and ability to address concerns, resulting in theoretically improved patient vaccine uptake and reduced patient VH.

Nineteen studies took place in the USA, Citation 26 , Citation 77–94 ten in Europe Citation 75–76 , Citation 95–102 and one in Australia. Citation 103 Student sample sizes ranged from 4 Citation 103 to 421 Citation 99 (median 84). All Italian, German, and Spanish interventions were didactic in nature, focusing on knowledge of processes in development and delivery. Other European (UK, Finland) and Australian interventions were either interactive, including skills, attitudes, and knowledge, or focused on service delivery. North America involved a mix of both. Two studies took place across multiple institutions, Citation 91 , Citation 92 while seven collected data over sequential years. Citation 78 , Citation 79 , Citation 82 , Citation 84 , Citation 88 , Citation 92 , Citation 94 Sixteen studies included students in pre-clinical years (1 st –2 nd year, or all years) Citation 26–77 , Citation 78–80 , Citation 82–84 , Citation 86–93 , Citation 99–100 while 17 included clinical years (3 rd –final year, or all years). Citation 26–75 , Citation 76–79 , Citation 81–85 , Citation 90–91 , Citation 93–97 , Citation 99–103 One did not specify the student stage. Citation 98

What is the content, approach, and framing of these interventions?

Twenty-four interventions described content around vaccinology. Citation 26 , Citation 77–85 , Citation 87–92 , Citation 95–101 , Citation 103 Vaccinology included vaccine biochemistry, development, delivery and monitoring, and vaccine-preventable diseases. Improving knowledge was generally thought to improve student vaccine confidence and recommendations. This was mostly delivered in a didactic format through expert-delivered lecture or pre-reading. Twenty-five interventions included content around VH. Citation 26 , Citation 75–88 , Citation 90–98 This involved identifying and addressing patient VH, either in theory or in practice. Interventions included reasons for hesitancy and how to address these Citation 77 , Citation 78 , Citation 82 , Citation 83 , Citation 85 , Citation 87 , Citation 88 , Citation 96–98 and/or provided opportunities to practice VH communication skills with real or simulated patients. Citation 75–77 , Citation 80 , Citation 82 , Citation 83 , Citation 87 , Citation 90 , Citation 93 , Citation 94 Some only taught theoretical communication skills. Citation 26 , Citation 81 , Citation 86 , Citation 91 , Citation 92 , Citation 95 , Citation 98 Eight interventions provided opportunities for students to give or practice giving vaccinations. Citation 77 , Citation 78 , Citation 84 , Citation 86 , Citation 89 , Citation 96 , Citation 102 , Citation 103

Thirteen interventions focused on childhood vaccinations. Citation 75–77 , Citation 81–83 , Citation 85 , Citation 87 , Citation 88 , Citation 94 , Citation 96 , Citation 98 , Citation 100 These mostly addressed knowledge of vaccine safety and the importance of recommendation to correct misinformation. Some studies addressed improving student attitudes toward the vaccines and vaccine mandates Citation 82 , Citation 88 , Citation 100 or toward hesitant patients, Citation 75 , Citation 76 though baseline attitudes toward vaccines were already supportive. Nine interventions focused on HPV vaccines. Citation 26 , Citation 77–79 , Citation 85–87 , Citation 90–92 , Citation 96 These all theorized that improving student vaccination attitudes through knowledge-based teaching and emphasizing strong, consistent recommendation to patients will improve uptake.

Seven interventions addressed flu vaccines. Citation 77 , Citation 78 , Citation 84 , Citation 89 , Citation 96 , Citation 99 , Citation 103 These focused on the student’s perceived importance of flu vaccines, aiming to encourage student vaccination to protect others and improve likelihood of vaccine recommendation. Some used flu vaccination service delivery as a way to improve this. Citation 84 , Citation 89 , Citation 103 Six interventions addressed COVID. Citation 82 , Citation 86 , Citation 93 , Citation 97 , Citation 101 , Citation 102 These used the pandemic to capitalize on student interest and explain vaccine production and safety processes to build trust in vaccine safety. This was then often related back to other vaccines. Five interventions discussed vaccines generally, usually referring to the processes around vaccine development and delivery. Citation 80 , Citation 86 , Citation 88 , Citation 95 , Citation 97 The three interventions also addressed other vaccines including travel vaccines Citation 96 , Citation 103 or shingles. Citation 87

Design and framing

Most interventions did not overtly describe any theoretical grounding in how the intervention was delivered. Of those that did, there was variable quality in how this was presented. Two studies Citation 87 , Citation 102 clearly described and applied educational theory; however, while other authors referenced other theories, they did not explain how these underpinned their approach. Citation 26 , Citation 95 , Citation 96

Seven interventions Citation 26 , Citation 75–76 , Citation 85–87 , Citation 90 overtly taught evidence-based methods, such as motivational interviewing or presumptive approach, Citation 39 , Citation 107–109 to address VH. Two studies Citation 81 , Citation 102 described student-patient or observed doctor-patient discussions, while another study Citation 94 described student discussions with standardized patient role-players without supporting taught communication techniques. Both evidence-based (e.g., trust-building) and non-evidence-based methods (e.g., participatory methods and deficit model communication) were observed, but students were unsure which to emulate or use. The two studies Citation 92 , Citation 93 did not overtly name evidence-based approaches but suggested approaches that attempted to address patient health ideas and concerns meaningfully. Seven studies Citation 26 , Citation 77 , Citation 78 , Citation 82 , Citation 85 , Citation 90 , Citation 101 focused on countering vaccine misinformation using a clear deficit model approach. Six others Citation 83 , Citation 84 , Citation 89 , Citation 96 , Citation 100 , Citation 103 described a patient presenting without significant prior knowledge or concerns, also conveying a deficit model approach to vaccine counseling. Eight studies Citation 79 , Citation 80 , Citation 88 , Citation 91 , Citation 95 , Citation 97–99 did not contain enough information in the text to determine a clear approach, however the framing of evaluation questions and limited details provided suggest a deficit model lens.

What level of evidence is available for how well these interventions work and why?

Study design.

Twenty studies used pre-post study design, with four of these comparing two or more groups against each other Citation 77 , Citation 84 , Citation 92 , Citation 100 and 16 using pre-post tests on the same group. Citation 26 , Citation 78–80 , Citation 85–88 , Citation 90–91 , Citation 93–95 , Citation 97–98 , Citation 101–103 One study stated a cross-sectional study design with controls. Citation 99 Nine did not state their study design but collected data on participants post-intervention. Citation 75–76 , Citation 81–83 , Citation 89–94 , Citation 96–102 Six studies were qualitative in nature Citation 75 , Citation 76 , Citation 81 , Citation 89 , Citation 94 , Citation 102 while the other 22 were quantitative. Five of the quantitative studies also gathered qualitative data through survey format. Citation 80 , Citation 84 , Citation 93 , Citation 96 , Citation 103

Evaluation tools

Most studies used a single evaluation tool, generally, a survey, Citation 26 , Citation 77–80 , Citation 82–88 , Citation 90–101 , Citation 103 with only two using multiple evaluation tools to gather data. Citation 77 , Citation 87 Surveys generally ask questions around vaccination attitudes, with some testing (usually biomedical) knowledge. Most evaluations measured immediately post-intervention; however, eight studies measured impact between 1 week and 3 months post-intervention, Citation 77 , Citation 78 , Citation 83 , Citation 84 , Citation 87 , Citation 92 , Citation 93 , Citation 100 and two studies measured impact greater than 1 y post-intervention. Citation 77 , Citation 87 Belterman et al. Citation 96 used a validated questionnaire to measure the effectiveness of teaching interventions. No other validated surveys were used; however, two studies used original surveys informed by validated surveys. Citation 77 , Citation 87

Effectiveness

Most studies assessed attitudes and knowledge, with a few assessing skills, though these were mostly self-perceived abilities. Mixed quality of evidence for effectiveness was found throughout. High quality of evidence for effectiveness was provided by only a few studies for attitudes toward mandates, Citation 79 self-efficacy, Citation 94 , Citation 102 and own VH; Citation 92 knowledge of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs)/vaccines Citation 77 , Citation 92 and VH, Citation 92 and satisfaction. Citation 92 , Citation 100 Sutton et al. Citation 77 showed no significant effect of the intervention to maintain long-term confidence recommendation and pro-mandate attitudes above a control.

Most provided medium-low quality of evidence for effectiveness for attitudes (confidence recommending Citation 26 , Citation 78 , Citation 79 , Citation 85 , Citation 89 , Citation 90 , Citation 93 , Citation 94 , Citation 103 , pro-mandates Citation 78 , Citation 82 , student vaccine confidence, Citation 78 , Citation 79 , Citation 82 , Citation 84 , Citation 88 , Citation 90 , Citation 91 , Citation 99 , Citation 100 , Citation 103 self-efficacy, Citation 80 patient perspective, Citation 75 , Citation 76 , Citation 93 knowledge (of VPDs, Citation 26 , Citation 83 , Citation 84 , Citation 91 of vaccines, Citation 79–83 , Citation 84–100 , Citation 101 , Citation 103 of VH, Citation 89 and of patient-provider discussions, Citation 81 , Citation 94 , Citation 102 understanding of patient perspective, Citation 75 , Citation 84 and confidence in own knowledge); Citation 84 , Citation 87 , Citation 88 , Citation 95 , Citation 96 , Citation 103 skills (observed ability to recommend, Citation 75–77 , Citation 87 self-perceived ability to recommend, Citation 89 , Citation 93 , Citation 96 , Citation 102 confidence in own ability to administer, Citation 84 , Citation 103 and ability to determine vaccine indication); Citation 100 and satisfaction. Citation 82 , Citation 85 , Citation 86 , Citation 93 , Citation 102 Correlation was shown between knowledge and attitudes. Citation 92 Interactive online methods were more effective than leaflets, video, or control in changing attitudes. Citation 99

Some studies offered evidence of limited/no change in attitudes Citation 26 , Citation 90 or knowledge, Citation 83 , Citation 84 , Citation 91 or in certain demographic groups. Citation 79 , Citation 90 , Citation 100 Jenkins et al. Citation 94 found that in students given opportunities to practice, discuss, and reflect on skills, but with minimal structured communication guidance, some students identified approaches to learn that are likely to be unsuccessful or even backfire. The practical session improved confidence but had reduced competence, with no difference in overall attitudes, when compared to a lecture. Citation 100 Perceived educational benefits of service provision are reduced rapidly, with long-term commitments motivated intrinsically or financially. Citation 93 , Citation 102

This review explored educational interventions to address vaccination/VH for medical students in western cultural settings. It identified a wide range of interventions in the peer-reviewed literature of mixed quality in educational/study design and outcome. Interventions addressed knowledge, skills, and attitudes around vaccines/VH, mostly showing improvement in these domains. Conclusions around effectiveness were limited by study design and heterogeneity, with no single-objective conclusion possible. Most studies measured knowledge or attitudes, with skills and satisfaction less well measured. Only one intervention measured clinical outcomes, reducing translational impact on practice.

A value-based judgment weighing results against study quality, design, and sample size suggested that the most effective interventions used multiple methods and grounding in educational theory to address knowledge, skills, and attitudes together and were supported by considered study designs with multiple forms of evaluation. Interactive group work with opportunities for reflection was more effective at shaping attitudes and improving knowledge retention (especially when supported by brief didactic methods), while actor-based role-plays showed long-term improvement in skills. There were two further key findings from this review: intervention framing and evaluation quality.

Intervention framing

No single approach to addressing VH has been proven to be universally effective. However, some approaches, such as adapted motivational interviewing models Citation 39 , Citation 60 , Citation 107 , Citation 108 or the presumptive methods, Citation 63 , Citation 64 , Citation 107 , Citation 109 , Citation 110 show promise as emerging communication models in western countries. These should still be critically applied. For example, the presumptive method has less evaluation of its effects on the long-term patient–doctor relationship and has largely been tested in the USA. In countries like the UK, where such direct communication could be less well perceived, this may also backfire.

Despite being shown to be ineffective and potentially backfire, Citation 13 , Citation 35–38 most interventions analyzed in this review unintentionally reinforced a deficit-based approach. This framing may have been an unconscious decision since it is a prevailing approach in much of medicine. Citation 111–113 This is even evident in one study in this review, Citation 94 where students were allowed to find their own approaches to addressing VH. The inclusion of a deficit-based approach in just a small part of an educational intervention could be argued to be minimal in impact. However, its presence reinforces the unchallenged assumption (both in learned practice and assessment of intervention effectiveness metrics) that VH individuals may be making their decisions purely on lack of correct information, rather than taking a more holistic view. Many of these studies have good educational outcomes, but it is unclear, or even unlikely, how far these will later translate into good clinical outcomes if physicians have effectively learned ineffective methods.

Further, deficit model approaches may support polarized attitudes around vaccine mandates being desirable. Citation 77–79 , Citation 82 While ethically justifiable, strongly pro-mandate attitudes, unmoderated by understanding of patient values and worldviews, may exacerbate disconnection between HCPs and patients. Citation 11 , Citation 114 , Citation 115

Finally, deficit model framing has been suggested by some authors to impact student attitudes toward vaccines. For example, some interventions suggest a link between improved knowledge and reduced hesitancy. Citation 78 , Citation 88 , Citation 92 However, several deficit-framed interventions that improved knowledge showed persistent and unchanged hesitancy or lack of vaccine confidence. Citation 79 , Citation 82 , Citation 90 , Citation 99 , Citation 100 VH in medical students should be examined for interventions, especially when interventions do not improve vaccine confidence.

Evaluation quality

Studies that contained more meaningful results had pre-post study design, with students tested immediately before, afterward, and again several months later, with control groups if possible. Citation 77 , Citation 87 , Citation 92 While few interventions took place at multiple sites, multi-site comparison added little to the results and complicated reporting with variability of delivery and lack of local context that confounded results. Instead, evaluations were more meaningful when taking place at well-described single sites over multiple years. Citation 79 , Citation 81 , Citation 88 , Citation 92 Descriptions of local context and VH were largely absent but remain important since cultural attitudes across western cultures cannot be assumed to be homogenous. Citation 116 , Citation 117 Further, descriptions of medical students' prior learning were rare Citation 96 but were valuable for transferability since appropriate learning objectives may vary depending on student stage.

Evaluations also offered the most value when using multiple evaluation tools. Carefully designed surveys that considered the nature of what was being investigated were able to capture important data about student knowledge and attitudes and allowed comparison over time. Objective measures of performance in skill were particularly useful Citation 77 , Citation 87 – if underused – and complemented knowledge and attitude data by illuminating where confidence may outweigh competence. Citation 100

Most studies lacked in-depth exploration into what was being learned and how but rather speculated on learning processes from limited quantitative data. Since VH is a psycho-behavioral issue likely to vary between contexts, Citation 118 qualitative data are particularly important to examine why an intervention works, so results can be transferable. Dialog rather than survey methods offered richer results. Citation 75 , Citation 102 Patient perspectives were entirely lacking in evaluation bar one. Citation 87

Strengths and limitations

This study took a systematic approach to data collection so is unlikely to have missed important published studies. The decision not to restrict based on study quality gives a better portrait of what may or may not work, with further detail possible through the narrative format. Omitting gray literature, however, may have missed some interventions but does predispose a higher baseline quality.

All findings are also limited to western cultural settings. The rationale for selecting countries within western settings refers to broad trends and generalizations with comparable healthcare settings which may support allowed implementation from findings. VH as defined in this paper is a global problem not limited to high-income Western countries. However, the nature, prevalence, and reasons for hesitancy may differ significantly between Western and non-Western countries as suggested by other related reviews. Citation 11 A worldwide report by the Wellcome Trust in 2018 Citation 119 found that high-income countries had significantly more concerns about the safety of vaccines than low- or middle-income countries. More recently, a report by the Vaccine Confidence Project Citation 120 found that since the COVID pandemic, confidence in the USA and Europe remains low, with large losses of confidence in several countries within these areas. However, China, India, and Mexico were all found to buck the global trend of declining vaccine confidence, with significant improvements found to be shaped by collectivist cultural contexts not embedded in Western individualist cultures. Various countries in Asia and Africa have also suffered significant losses in confidence; however, though for many of these countries, there does not exist sufficient research exploring the reasons for this.

As outlined in the introduction, there are important differences between Western and non-Western countries in healthcare contexts, the roles and medical education of different healthcare professionals, and socio-cultural communication norms or values, especially between doctors and patients. These mean that synthesizing and applying interventions designed within Western cultural settings for implementation outside of these settings may not be appropriate. However, we also recognize that intra-cultural differences within countries may sometimes be even greater than those between countries by different metrics. We recommend reviews of interventions in various non-western cultural settings, considering the respective nature of VH and patient-doctor communication models. We also recommend that each institution considers their local sociocultural demographics and engages with local communities to take account of communication norms and trust in HCPs and vaccines to develop tailored interventions.

MERSQI has several limitations. High scoring designs (multi-site, RCTs) are not always practical for educational interventions. Measuring response rates in percentages means that total participants are not weighted. Measuring whether something was reported or not, rather than the quality of reporting, lacks granularity. The Kirkpatrick scale, also reflected in MERSQI, assumes a hierarchy, when capturing multiple levels may be useful and ‘lower’ levels still have desirable value. Many studies used evaluations that may be more prone to bias, such as self-reported measures; however, these are reflected in MERSQI ratings. Further, these scoring systems do not assess the accuracy of reported studies and assume their infallibility. One study claims significance when no statistical test of significance has been done Citation 82 while another used Pearson’s correlation coefficient when a Wilcoxon signed rank test may be more appropriate, likely leading to misleading results. Citation 91 We have adjusted our reporting in this review around these additional observations.

The mixed methods nature of this review means that it is unable to give more definitive/objective markers of evidence – though captures more data and offers more detail for transferability.

The heterogeneity of studies made direct comparisons impractical and limits the generalizability of results when viewed through a positivist paradigm. Instead, the evidence for effectiveness rating was developed within a post-positivist paradigm, balancing the goal of generalizability with the acknowledgment of the complexity and variability of educational interventions within a wider social context. Many interventions included a self-selected population either in the participating group or through survey completion. While this has been reported in Appendix 3, and taken into account in the effectiveness rating, the effect of this is difficult to quantify. The evidence for effectiveness rating does not pretend to be an objective or validated tool. Conclusions from this must be taken with caution, however we hope that this offers more granularity.

Effective interventions utilized hands-on interactive methods emulating real practice, supported by didactic methods, to develop knowledge, skills, and attitudes around addressing VH. However, most interventions are teaching the deficit model, a non-evidence-based framing which may significantly reduce effectiveness in practice. Interventions should instead consider the overt and covert framing of knowledge, skills, and attitudes within evidence-based approaches such as motivational interviewing.

Future research should include evaluating interventions with study designs that incorporate short- and long-term follow-up. These should include multiple objective assessments of knowledge and skill, evaluation of attitudes toward vaccines and VH patients, and assessing real-world patient impact where possible.

No ethics panel was required as this is a review of published literature.

Author contributions statement

Philip White – conception and design, analysis, and interpretation of the data, drafting of the paper, revising it critically for intellectual content, and final approval of the version to be published.

Hugh Alberti – conception and design, analysis, and interpretation of the data, revising it critically for intellectual content, and final approval of the version to be published.

Gill Rowlands – conception and design, analysis, and interpretation of the data, revising it critically for intellectual content, and final approval of the version to be published.

Eugene Tang – conception and design, analysis, and interpretation of the data, revising it critically for intellectual content, and final approval of the version to be published.

Dominique Gagnon – analysis and interpretation of the data, revising it critically for intellectual content, and final approval of the version to be published.

Ève Dubé – conception and design, analysis, and interpretation of the data, revising it critically for intellectual content, and final approval of the version to be published.

Appendix 1 Inclusion and Exclusion criteria.docx

Appendix 4 supplementary study material_.docx, appendix 2 quality rating.pdf, appendix 3 additional extracted data.pdf, acknowledgments.

Many thanks to Anthony Codd, Lily Lamb, Greet Hendrickx, Rebecca Harris, and Fiona Beyer for their advice and assistance in developing this review.

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website at https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2024.2397875

Notes on contributors

Philip white.

Philip White is a National Institute of Health and Social Care Research (NIHR) Academic Clinical Fellow in General Practice based at Newcastle University. His research interests include vaccine hesitancy and medical education.

Hugh Alberti

Hugh Alberti is a General Practitioner and the Subdean for Primary and Community Care at Newcastle University. He leads a team of GP trainees and clinical teaching fellows focused on the development of educational initiatives and research projects within the realm of primary care. His research interests focus primarily on medical education, particularly within primary care and community settings.

Gill Rowlands

Gill Rowlands is a General Practitioner and a Professor in the Population Health Sciences Institute. Her main research interests are in the area of health inequalities, particularly the role of health literacy in health, and the role of GPs in identifying and addressing the problems faced by patients with lower health literacy. She founded the Health Literacy Group UK and has authored and co-authored over 70 publications in peer-reviewed journals, co-edited three health literacy textbooks and authored seven chapters in health literacy textbooks. She provides expert advice on health literacy to the Royal College of General Practice, NHS England, Belfast Healthy Cities, and the Health Service Executive (Ireland). She chairs the Health Literacy Global Working Group of the International Union of Health Promotion and Education.

Eugene Tang

Eugene Tang is a NIHR Clinical Lecturer and General Practitioner based at Newcastle University. His research interests include post-stroke cognition, dementia, risk prediction modeling, and reducing inequalities in care.

Dominique Gagnon

Dominique Gagnon is a scientific advisor in immunization at the Quebec National Institute of Public Health. She has over a decade of experience working on various vaccination-related projects, with a significant focus on addressing vaccine hesitancy.

Eve Dubé is a medical anthropologist. She is a professor in the Department of Anthropology at Laval University in Quebec (Canada). She is also affiliated with the Quebec National Institute of Public Health and the Research Center of the CHU de Quebec-Université Laval. Most of her research focuses on the socio-cultural aspects of vaccination. She is also interested in vaccine hesitancy and doing various projects in that field. She was a member of the WHO working group on Vaccine Hesitancy. Since 2014, she is leading the Social Sciences and Humanities Network (SSHN) of the Canadian Immunization Research Network.

• Cascini F, Pantovic A, Al-Ajlouni Y, Failla G, Ricciardi W. Attitudes, acceptance and hesitancy among the general population worldwide to receive the COVID-19 vaccines and their contributing factors: a systematic review. EClinicalMedicine . 2021; 40 :101113. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101113.   PubMed Google Scholar
• Hussain A, Ali S, Ahmed M, Hussain S. The anti-vaccination movement: a regression in modern medicine. Cureus . 2018; 10 ( 7 ):e2919. doi:10.7759/cureus.2919.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• WHO. Understanding the behavioural and social drivers of vaccine uptake. Position paper. Weekly epidemiological record. 2022. Contract No.: 97.   Google Scholar
• MacDonald NE. Vaccine hesitancy: definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine . 2015; 33 ( 34 ):4161–15. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.036.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• WHO. Ten Threats to global health in 2019 [internet]. World Health Organisation. 2019 [accessed 2023 Nov 7]. https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019 .   Google Scholar
• Larson Hjdf A, Karafillakis E, Rawal M. State of vaccine confidence in the EU 2018 . Luxembourg: The European Commission; 2018.   Google Scholar
• Larson HJ, de Figueiredo A, Xiahong Z, Schulz WS, Verger P, Johnston IG, Cook AR, Jones NS. The state of vaccine confidence 2016: global insights through a 67-country survey. EBioMedicine . 2016; 12 :295–301. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.08.042.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Causey K, Fullman N, Sorensen RJD, Galles NC, Zheng P, Aravkin A, Danovaro-Holliday MC, Martinez-Piedra R, Sodha SV, Velandia-González MP, et al. Estimating global and regional disruptions to routine childhood vaccine coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020: a modelling study. Lancet . 2021; 398 ( 10299 ):522–34. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01337-4.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Falope O, Nyaku MK, O’Rourke C, Hermany LV, Plavchak B, Mauskopf J, Hartley L, Kruk ME. Resilience learning from the COVID-19 pandemic and its relevance for routine immunization programs. Expert Rev Vaccines . 2022; 21 ( 11 ):1621–36. doi:10.1080/14760584.2022.2116007.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Dubé E, Laberge C, Guay M, Bramadat P, Roy R, Bettinger J. Vaccine hesitancy: an overview. Hum Vaccin Immunother . 2013; 9 ( 8 ):1763–73. doi:10.4161/hv.24657.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Verger P, Botelho-Nevers E, Garrison A, Gagnon D, Gagneur A, Gagneux-Brunon A, Dubé E. Vaccine hesitancy in health-care providers in Western countries: a narrative review. Expert Rev Vaccines . 2022; 21 ( 7 ):909–27. doi:10.1080/14760584.2022.2056026.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Jarrett C, Wilson R, O’Leary M, Eckersberger E, Larson HJ. Strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy – a systematic review. Vaccine . 2015; 33 ( 34 ):4180–90. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.040.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Dubé E, Gagnon D, MacDonald NE. Strategies intended to address vaccine hesitancy: review of published reviews. Vaccine . 2015; 33 ( 34 ):4191–203. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.041.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Leask J, Kinnersley P, Jackson C, Cheater F, Bedford H, Rowles G. Communicating with parents about vaccination: a framework for health professionals. BMC Pediatrics . 2012; 12 ( 1 ):154. doi:10.1186/1471-2431-12-154.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Shen SC, Dubey V. Addressing vaccine hesitancy: clinical guidance for primary care physicians working with parents. Can Fam Physician . 2019;65:175–81.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Paterson P, Meurice F, Stanberry LR, Glismann S, Rosenthal SL, Larson HJ. Vaccine hesitancy and healthcare providers. Vaccine . 2016; 34 ( 52 ):6700–6. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.10.042.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Dybsand LL, Hall KJ, Carson PJ. Immunization attitudes, opinions, and knowledge of healthcare professional students at two midwestern universities in the United States. BMC Med Educ . 2019; 19 ( 1 ):242. doi:10.1186/s12909-019-1678-8.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Voglino G, Barbara A, Dallagiacoma G, Santangelo OE, Provenzano S, Gianfredi V. Do degree programs affect health profession students’ attitudes and opinions toward vaccinations? An Italian multicenter study. Saf Health Work . 2022; 13 ( 1 ):59–65. doi:10.1016/j.shaw.2021.10.005.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Kaur M, Coppeta L, Olesen OF. Vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers in Europe: a systematic review. Vaccines . 2023; 11 ( 11 ):1657. doi:10.3390/vaccines11111657.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Cuschieri S, Grech V. A comparative assessment of attitudes and hesitancy for influenza vis-à-vis COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare students and professionals in Malta. Z Gesundh Wiss . 2022; 30 ( 10 ):2441–8. doi:10.1007/s10389-021-01585-z.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Neufeind J, Betsch C, Zylka-Menhorn V, Wichmann O. Determinants of physician attitudes towards the new selective measles vaccine mandate in Germany. BMC Public Health . 2021; 21 ( 1 ):566. doi:10.1186/s12889-021-10563-9.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Baessler F, Zafar A, Mengler K, Natus RN, Dutt AJ, Kuhlmann M, Çinkaya E, Hennes S. A needs-based analysis of teaching on vaccinations and COVID-19 in German medical schools. Vaccines . 2022; 10 ( 6 ):975. doi:10.3390/vaccines10060975.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Costantino C, Amodio E, Calamusa G, Vitale F, Mazzucco W. Could university training and a proactive attitude of coworkers be associated with influenza vaccination compliance? A multicentre survey among Italian medical residents. BMC Med Educ . 2016; 16 ( 1 ):38. doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0558-8.   PubMed Google Scholar
• Kerneis S, Jacquet C, Bannay A, May T, Launay O, Verger P, Pulcini C, Abgueguen P, Ansart S, Bani-Sadr F, et al. Vaccine education of medical students: a nationwide Cross-sectional survey. Am J Prev Med . 2017; 53 ( 3 ):97–104. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2017.01.014.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Pelly LP, Pierrynowski Macdougall DM, Halperin BA, Strang RA, Bowles SK, Baxendale DM, McNeil SA. The VAXED PROJECT: an assessment of immunization education in Canadian health professional programs. BMC Med Educ . 2010; 10 ( 1 ):86. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-10-86.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Richman AR, Torres E, Wu Q, Eldridge D, Lawson L. The evaluation of a digital health intervention to improve human papillomavirus vaccine recommendation practices of medical students. J Cancer Educ: Off J Am Assoc Cancer Educ . 2022; 38 ( 4 ):1208–14. doi:10.1007/s13187-022-02250-z.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Hornsey MJ, Harris EA, Fielding KS. The psychological roots of anti-vaccination attitudes: a 24-nation investigation. Health Psychol . 2018; 37 ( 4 ):307–15. doi:10.1037/hea0000586.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Ko H. In science communication, why does the idea of a public deficit always return? How do the shifting information flows in healthcare affect the deficit model of science communication? Public Underst Sci . 2016; 25 ( 4 ):427–32. doi:10.1177/0963662516629746.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Schiavo R. How the information deficit model helps create unidirectional and paternalistic mode of healthcare communication. J Commun Healthcare . 2018;11(4):239–40.   Google Scholar
• Health Education England. Public Health England, NHS england and the community health and learning foundation. Health literacy 'how to' guide. Health Education England; 2020 [accessed 2024 Sept 03]. https://www.hee.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Health%20literacy%20how%20to%20guide.pdf   Google Scholar
• Paterick TE, Patel N, Tajik AJ, Chandrasekaran K. Improving health outcomes through patient education and partnerships with patients. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) . 2017; 30 ( 1 ):112–13. doi:10.1080/08998280.2017.11929552.   PubMed Google Scholar
• Jones AM, Omer SB, Bednarczyk RA, Halsey NA, Moulton LH, Salmon DA. Parents’ source of vaccine information and impact on vaccine attitudes, beliefs, and nonmedical exemptions. Adv Prev Med . 2012; 2012 :932741. doi:10.1155/2012/932741.   PubMed Google Scholar
• Larson HJ, Jarrett C, Eckersberger E, Smith DM, Paterson P. Understanding vaccine hesitancy around vaccines and vaccination from a global perspective: a systematic review of published literature, 2007–2012. Vaccine . 2014; 32 ( 19 ):2150–9. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.01.081.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Healy CM, Pickering LK. How to communicate with vaccine-hesitant parents. Pediatrics . 2011; Suppl 127 ( Supplement_1 ):S127–33. doi:10.1542/peds.2010-1722S.   Google Scholar
• Kaufman J, Ryan R, Walsh L, Horey D, Leask J, Robinson P, Hill S. Face-to-face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination. Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2018; 5 ( 5 ):Cd010038. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010038.pub3.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Tuckerman J, Kaufman J, Danchin M. Effective approaches to combat vaccine hesitancy. Pediatr Infect Dis J . 2022; 41 ( 5 ):243–5. doi:10.1097/INF.0000000000003499.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Betsch C, Sachse K. Debunking vaccination myths: strong risk negations can increase perceived vaccination risks. Health Psychol . 2013; 32 ( 2 ):146–55. doi:10.1037/a0027387.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Nyhan B, Reifler J, Richey S, Freed GL. Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial. Pediatrics . 2014; 133 ( 4 ):e835–42. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-2365.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Gagneur A, Gosselin V, È D. Motivational interviewing: a promising tool to address vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine . 2018; 36 ( 44 ):6553–5. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.10.049.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Lip A, Pateman M, Fullerton MM, Chen HM, Bailey L, Houle S, Davidson S, Constantinescu C. Vaccine hesitancy educational tools for healthcare providers and trainees: a scoping review. Vaccine . 2023; 41 ( 1 ):23–35. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.09.093.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Tchoualeu DD, Fleming M, Traicoff DA. A systematic review of pre-service training on vaccination and immunization. Vaccine . 2023; 41 ( 20 ):3156–70. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.03.062.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Sims DA. When I say … global south and global north. Med Educ . 2024; 58 ( 3 ):286–7. doi:10.1111/medu.15263.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Themrise K, Seye A, Catherine K, Madhukar P. How we classify countries and people—and why it matters. BMJ Global Health . 2022; 7 ( 6 ):e009704. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009704.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Dubé E, Gagnon D, Nickels E, Jeram S, Schuster M. Mapping vaccine hesitancy–country-specific characteristics of a global phenomenon. Vaccine . 2014; 32 ( 49 ):6649–54. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.09.039.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Naidu T. Southern exposure: levelling the northern tilt in global medical and medical humanities education. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract . 2021; 26 ( 2 ):739–52. doi:10.1007/s10459-020-09976-9.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Claramita M, Nugraheni MDF, van Dalen J, van der Vleuten C. Doctor–patient communication in Southeast Asia: a different culture? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract . 2013; 18 ( 1 ):15–31. doi:10.1007/s10459-012-9352-5.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Claramita M, Utarini A, Soebono H, Van Dalen J, Van der Vleuten C. Doctor–patient communication in a Southeast Asian setting: the conflict between ideal and reality. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract . 2011; 16 ( 1 ):69–80. doi:10.1007/s10459-010-9242-7.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Mathooko JmaK JK. African perspectives. In: Ten Have HAMJaG B. editor. Handbook of global bioethics . Dordrecht: Springer; 2013. p. 252–68.   Google Scholar
• Nagpal N. Incidents of violence against doctors in India: can these be prevented? Natl Med J India . 2017;30:97–100.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Ozeki-Hayashi R, Wilkinson DJC. Shinmi (親身): a distinctive Japanese medical virtue? Asian Bioethics Rev . 2023; doi:10.1007/s41649-023-00261-6.   Google Scholar
• Pun JKH, Chan EA, Wang S, Slade D. Health professional-patient communication practices in east asia: an integrative review of an emerging field of research and practice in Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Mainland China. Patient Educ Couns . 2018; 101 ( 7 ):1193–206. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2018.01.018.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Sekimoto M, Asai A, Ohnishi M, Nishigaki E, Fukui T, Shimbo T, et al. Patients’ preferences for involvement in treatment decision making in Japan. BMC Fam Pract . 2004; 5 :1. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-5-1.   PubMed Google Scholar
• Thompson GA, Segura J, Cruz D, Arnita C, Whiffen LH. Cultural differences in patients’ preferences for paternalism: comparing Mexican and American patients’ preferences for and experiences with physician paternalism and patient autonomy. Int J Environ Res Public Health . 2022; 19 ( 17 ):10663. doi:10.3390/ijerph191710663.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Thompson GA, Whiffen LH. Can physicians demonstrate high quality care using paternalistic practices? A case study of paternalism in latino physician–patient interactions. Qual Health Res . 2018; 28 ( 12 ):1910–22. doi:10.1177/1049732318783696.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Unger J-P, Van Dormael M, Criel B, Van der Vennet J, De Munck P. A PLEA for an initiative to strengthen family medicine in public health care services of developing countries. Int J Health Serv . 2002; 32 ( 4 ):799–815. doi:10.2190/FN20-AGDQ-GYCP-P8R6.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Phillips DE, Dieleman JL, Lim SS, Shearer J. Determinants of effective vaccine coverage in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review and interpretive synthesis. BMC Health Serv Res . 2017; 17 ( 1 ):681. doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2626-0.   PubMed Google Scholar
• Sallam M. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy worldwide: a concise systematic review of vaccine acceptance rates. Vaccines (Basel) . 2021; 9 ( 2 ):160. doi:10.3390/vaccines9020160.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Solís Arce JS, Warren SS, Meriggi NF, Scacco A, McMurry N, Voors M, Syunyaev G, Malik AA, Aboutajdine S, Adeojo O, et al. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy in low- and middle-income countries. Nat Med . 2021; 27 ( 8 ):1385–94. doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01454-y.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Dubé E, Vivion M, MacDonald NE. Vaccine hesitancy, vaccine refusal and the anti-vaccine movement: influence, impact and implications. Expert Rev Vaccines . 2015; 14 ( 1 ):99–117. doi:10.1586/14760584.2015.964212.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Bidkhanian PA. Motivational interviewing technique as a means of decreasing vaccine hesitancy in children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur Psychiatry . 2023; 66 ( S1 ):S740–S. doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2023.1555.   Google Scholar
• Brewer NT, Hall ME, Malo TL, Gilkey MB, Quinn B, Lathren C. Announcements versus conversations to improve HPV vaccination coverage: a randomized trial. Pediatrics . 2017; 139 ( 1 ):e20161764. doi:10.1542/peds.2016-1764.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Dybsand LL, Hall KJ, Ulven JC, Carson PJ. Improving provider confidence in addressing the vaccine-hesitant parent: a pilot project of 2 contrasting communication strategies. Clin Pediatrics . 2019; 59 ( 1 ):87–91. doi:10.1177/0009922819884572.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Opel DJ, Heritage J, Taylor JA, Mangione-Smith R, Salas HS, Devere V, Zhou C, Robinson JD. The architecture of provider-parent vaccine discussions at health supervision visits. Pediatrics . 2013; 132 ( 6 ):1037–46. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-2037.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Douglas JO, Jeffrey DR, Heather S, Christine S, Kathleen G, Amanda FD. ‘Presumptively initiating vaccines and optimizing talk with motivational interviewing’ (PIVOT with MI) trial: a protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial of a clinician vaccine communication intervention. BMJ Open . 2020; 10 ( 8 ):e039299. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039299.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Rashid MA, Griffin A. Is west really best? The discourse of modernisation in global medical school regulation policy. Teach Learn Med . 2023; Medicine.1–12. doi:10.1080/10401334.2023.2230586.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Lizarondo L, Stern C, Carrier J, Godfrey C, Rieger K, Salmond S, Apostolo J, Kirkpatrick P, Loveday H. Chapter 8: mixed methods systematic reviews. JBI manual for evidence synthesis [internet]. JBI. 2020. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global .   Google Scholar
• Harden RM, Grant J, Buckley G, Hart IR. BEME guide No. 1: best evidence medical education. Med Teach . 1999; 21 ( 6 ):553–62. doi:10.1080/01421599978960.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Sullivan GM. Deconstructing quality in education research. J Grad Med Educ . 2011; 3 ( 2 ):121–4. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-11-00083.1.   PubMed Google Scholar
• Yardley S, Dornan T. Kirkpatrick’s levels and education ‘evidence’. Med Educ . 2012; 46 ( 1 ):97–106. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04076.x.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Eggertson L. Lancet retracts 12-year-old article linking autism to MMR vaccines. Cmaj . 2010; 182 ( 4 ):E199–200. doi:10.1503/cmaj.109-3179.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Rao TS, Andrade C. The MMR vaccine and autism: sensation, refutation, retraction, and fraud. Indian J Psychiatry . 2011; 53 ( 2 ):95–6. doi:10.4103/0019-5545.82529.   PubMed Google Scholar
• Schmid P, Rauber D, Betsch C, Lidolt G, Denker ML. Barriers of influenza vaccination intention and behavior - a systematic review of influenza vaccine hesitancy, 2005 - 2016. PLOS ONE . 2017; 12 ( 1 ):e0170550. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170550.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Cook DA, Reed DA. Appraising the quality of medical education research methods: the medical education research study quality instrument and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale-education. Acad Med . 2015; 90 ( 8 ):1067–76. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000786.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Côté L, Turgeon J. Appraising qualitative research articles in medicine and medical education. Med Teach . 2005; 27 ( 1 ):71–5. doi:10.1080/01421590400016308.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Koski K, Lehto JT, Hakkarainen K. Simulated encounters with vaccine-hesitant parents: arts-based video scenario and a writing exercise. J Med Educ Curric Dev . 2018; 5 :9. doi:10.1177/2382120518790257.   Google Scholar
• Koski K, Lehto JT, Hakkarainen K. Physician self-disclosure and vaccine-critical parents׳ trust: preparing medical students for parents׳ difficult questions. Health Professions Educ . 2019; 5 ( 3 ):253–8. doi:10.1016/j.hpe.2018.09.005.   Google Scholar
• Sutton S, Azar SS, Evans LK, Murtagh A, McCarthy C, John MS. HPV knowledge retention and concurrent increase in vaccination rates 1.5 years after a novel HPV workshop in medical school. J Cancer Educ: Off J Am Assoc Cancer Educ . 2021; 38 ( 1 ):240–7. doi:10.1007/s13187-021-02106-y.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Afonso N, Kavanagh M, Swanberg S. Improvement in attitudes toward influenza vaccination in medical students following an integrated, curricular intervention. Vaccine . 2014; 32 ( 4 ):502–6. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.11.043.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Berenson AB, Hirth JM, Fuchs EL, Chang M, Rupp RE. An educational intervention to improve attitudes regarding HPV vaccination and comfort with counseling among US medical students. Hum Vaccin Immunother . 2020; 16 ( 5 ):1139–44. doi:10.1080/21645515.2019.1692558.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Brisolara KF, Gasparini S, Davis AH, Sanne S, Andrieu SC, James J, Mercante DE, De Carvalho RB, Patel Gunaldo T. Supporting health system transformation through an interprofessional education experience focused on population health. J Interprofessional Care . 2019; 33 ( 1 ):125–8. doi:10.1080/13561820.2018.1530646.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Caruso Brown AE, Suryadevara M, Welch TR, Botash AS. “Being persistent without being pushy”: student reflections on vaccine hesitancy. Narrat . 2017; 7 ( 1 ):59–70. doi:10.1353/nib.2017.0018.   Google Scholar
• Chase AJ, Demory ML. Counteracting vaccine misinformation: an active learning module. Med Sci Educ . 2023; 33 ( 3 ):1–4. doi:10.1007/s40670-023-01785-0.   PubMed Google Scholar
• Chase AJ, Heck AJ. Educating first‐year medical students on inactive vaccine components. Med Educ . 2020; 54 ( 5 ):446–7. doi:10.1111/medu.14111.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Chen G, Kazmi M, Chen DL, Phillips J. Improving medical student clinical knowledge and skills through influenza education. Med Sci Educ . 2021; 31 ( 5 ):1645–51. doi:10.1007/s40670-021-01355-2.   PubMed Google Scholar
• Coleman A, Lehman D. A flipped classroom and case-based curriculum to prepare medical students for vaccine-related conversations with parents. MedEdPORTAL: J Teach Learn Resour . 2017; 13 :10582. doi:10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10582.   PubMed Google Scholar
• Collins RA, Zeitouni J, Veesart A, Chacon J, Wong A, Byrd T. Establishment of a vaccine administration training program for medical students. Bayl Univ Med Cent Proc . 2023; 36 ( 2 ):157–60. doi:10.1080/08998280.2022.2137373.   PubMed Google Scholar
• Kelekar A, Rubino I, Kavanagh M, Lewis-Bedz R, LeClerc G, Pedell L, Afonso N. Vaccine hesitancy counseling—an educational intervention to teach a critical skill to preclinical medical students. Med Sci Educ . 2022; 32 ( 1 ):141–7. doi:10.1007/s40670-021-01495-5.   PubMed Google Scholar
• Onello E, Friedrichsen S, Krafts K, Simmons G, Diebel K. First year allopathic medical student attitudes about vaccination and vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine . 2020; 38 ( 4 ):808–14. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.10.094.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Rizal RE, Mediratta RP, Xie J, Kambhampati S, Hills-Evans K, Montacute T, Zhang M, Zaw C, He J, Sanchez M, et al. Galvanizing medical students in the administration of influenza vaccines: the stanford flu crew. Adv Med Educ Pract . 2015; 6 :471–7. doi:10.2147/AMEP.S70294.   PubMed Google Scholar
• Schnaith A, Erickson B, Evans E, Vogt C, Tinsay A, Schmidt T, Tessier K. An innovative medical student curriculum to address human papillomavirus vaccine hesitancy. Pediatrics Conf: Natl Conf Educ . 2018; 144 ( 2 ):237–237. doi:10.1542/peds.144.2MA3.237.   Google Scholar
• Thanasuwat B, Leung SOA, Welch K, Duffey-Lind E, Pena N, Feldman S, Villa A. Human papillomavirus (HPV) education and knowledge among medical and dental trainees. J Cancer Educ: Off J Am Assoc Cancer Educ . 2022; 38 ( 3 ):971–6. doi:10.1007/s13187-022-02215-2.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Wiley R, Shelal Z, Bernard C, Urbauer D, Toy E, Ramondetta L. Human papillomavirus: from basic science to clinical management for preclinical medical students. MedEdPORTAL publ . 2018; 14 :10787. doi:10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10787.   PubMed Google Scholar
• Wu JF, Abenoza N, Bosco JM, Minshew LM, Beckius A, Kastner M, Hilgeman B, Muntz MD. COVID-19 vaccination telephone outreach: an analysis of the medical student experience. Med Educ Online . 2023; 28 ( 1 ):2207249. doi:10.1080/10872981.2023.2207249.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Jenkins MC, Paul CR, Chheda S, Hanson JL. Qualitative analysis of reflective writing examines medical student learning about vaccine hesitancy. Asia Pac Scholar . 2023; 8 ( 2 ):36–46. doi:10.29060/TAPS.2023-8-2/OA2855.   Google Scholar
• Bechini A, Moscadelli A, Sartor G, Shtylla J, Guelfi MR, Bonanni P, Boccalini, S. Impact assessment of an educational course on vaccinations in a population of medical students. J . 2019;60(3):171–7.   Google Scholar
• Beltermann E, Krane S, Kiesewetter J, Fischer MR, Schelling J. See your GP, see the world - an activating course concept for fostering students’ competence in performing vaccine and travel consultations. GMS Z Med Ausbild . 2015; 32 ( 3 ):Doc28. doi:10.3205/zma000970.   PubMed Google Scholar
• Boccalini S, Vannacci A, Crescioli G, Lombardi N, Del Riccio M, Albora G, Shtylla J, Masoni M, Guelfi MR, Bonanni P, et al. Knowledge of university students in health care settings on vaccines and vaccinations strategies: impact evaluation of a specific educational training course during the COVID-19 pandemic period in Italy. Vaccines . 2022; 10 ( 7 ):1085. doi:10.3390/vaccines10071085.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Marotta C, Raia DD, Ventura G, Casuccio N, Dieli F, D’Angelo C, Restivo, V, Costantino, C, Vitale, F Casuccio, A. Improvement in vaccination knowledge among health students following an integrated extra curricular intervention, an explorative study in the university of palermo. J . 2017;58(2):93–8.   Google Scholar
• Mena G, Llupia A, Garcia-Basteiro AL, Sequera VG, Aldea M, Bayas JM, Trilla A. Educating on professional habits: attitudes of medical students towards diverse strategies for promoting influenza vaccination and factors associated with the intention to get vaccinated. BMC Med Educ . 2013; 13 ( 1 ):6. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-13-99.   PubMed Google Scholar
• Rill V, Steffen B, Wicker S. Evaluation of a vaccination seminar in regard to medical students’ attitudes and their theoretical and practical vaccination-specific competencies. GMS J Med Educ . 2020; 37 ( 4 ):14. doi:10.3205/zma001331.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Bechini A, Vannacci A, Salvati C, Crescioli G, Lombardi N, Chiesi F, Shtylla J, Del Riccio M, Bonanni P, Boccalini S, et al. Knowledge and training of Italian students in healthcare settings on COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination strategies, one year after the immunization campaign. J Preventative Med Hyg . 2023; 64 ( 2 ):152–60. doi:10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2023.64.2.2934.   Google Scholar
• Driessen J, Hearn R. Development of hidden curriculum skills in a COVID-19 vaccination centre. Clin Teach . 2023; 21 ( 2 ). doi:10.1111/tct.13642.   PubMed Google Scholar
• Carroll PR, Hanrahan J. Development and evaluation of an interprofessional student-led influenza vaccination clinic for medical, nursing and pharmacy students. Pharm Pract (1886-3655) . 2021; 19 ( 4 ):1–12. doi:10.18549/PharmPract.2021.4.2449.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Hanrahan JR, Carroll PR. Student-led interprofessional influenza vaccination clinic in a time of coronavirus. Med Educ . 2020; 54 ( 11 ):1078–9. doi:10.1111/medu.14323.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Evans L, Matley E, Oberbillig M, Margetts E, Darrow L. HPV knowledge and attitudes among medical and professional students at a Nevada university: a focus on oropharyngeal cancer and mandating the vaccine. J Cancer Educ . 2020; 35 ( 4 ):774–81. doi:10.1007/s13187-019-01529-y.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Wiley R, Shelal Z, Bernard C, Urbauer D, Toy E, Ramondetta L. Team-based learning module for undergraduate medical education: a module focused on the human papilloma virus to increase willingness to vaccinate. J Cancer Educ . 2019; 34 ( 2 ):357–62. doi:10.1007/s13187-017-1311-7.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Dempsey AF, Pyrznawoski J, Lockhart S, Barnard J, Campagna EJ, Garrett K, Fisher A, Dickinson LM, O’Leary ST. Effect of a health care professional communication training intervention on adolescent human papillomavirus vaccination: a cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr . 2018; 172 ( 5 ):e180016. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.0016.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Lemaitre T, Carrier N, Farrands A, Gosselin V, Petit G, Gagneur A. Impact of a vaccination promotion intervention using motivational interview techniques on long-term vaccine coverage: the PromoVac strategy. Hum Vaccin Immunother . 2019; 15 ( 3 ):732–9. doi:10.1080/21645515.2018.1549451.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Opel DJ, Mangione-Smith R, Robinson JD, Heritage J, DeVere V, Salas HS, Zhou C, Taylor JA. The influence of provider communication behaviors on parental vaccine acceptance and visit experience. Am J Public Health . 2015; 105 ( 10 ):1998–2004. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302425.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Opel DJ, Robinson JD, Heritage J, Korfiatis C, Taylor JA, Mangione-Smith R. Characterizing providers’ immunization communication practices during health supervision visits with vaccine-hesitant parents: a pilot study. Vaccine . 2012; 30 ( 7 ):1269–75. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.12.129.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Clapper TC. How the information deficit model helps create unidirectional and paternalistic mode of healthcare communication. J Commun Healthcare . 2018;11(4):239–40.   Google Scholar
• Alexandra LJF. How to communicate evidence to patients. Drug Ther Bull . 2019; 57 ( 8 ):119. doi:10.1136/dtb.2019.000008.   PubMed Google Scholar
• King A, Hoppe RB. “Best practice” for patient-centered communication: a narrative review. J Grad Med Educ . 2013; 5 ( 3 ):385–93. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-13-00072.1.   PubMed Google Scholar
• Bardosh K, de Figueiredo A, Gur-Arie R, Jamrozik E, Doidge J, Lemmens T, Keshavjee S, Graham JE, Baral S. The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good. BMJ Glob Health . 2022; 7 ( 5 ):e008684. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2022-008684.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Sween L, Ekeoduru R, Mann D. Ethics and pitfalls of vaccine mandates. ASA Monit . 2022; 86 ( 2 ):24–5. doi:10.1097/01.ASM.0000820408.65886.28.   Google Scholar
• de Figueiredo A, Simas C, Karafillakis E, Paterson P, Larson HJ. Mapping global trends in vaccine confidence and investigating barriers to vaccine uptake: a large-scale retrospective temporal modelling study. Lancet . 2020; 396 ( 10255 ):898–908. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31558-0.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Nuwarda RF, Ramzan I, Weekes L, Kayser V. Vaccine hesitancy: contemporary issues and historical background. Vaccines (Basel) . 2022; 10 ( 10 ):1595. doi:10.3390/vaccines10101595.   PubMed Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Oduwole EO, Pienaar ED, Mahomed H, Wiysonge CS. Overview of tools and measures investigating vaccine hesitancy in a Ten year period: a scoping review. Vaccines . 2022; 10 ( 8 ):1198. doi:10.3390/vaccines10081198.   Web of Science ® Google Scholar
• Trust W. Long term outcome and pulmonary vein reconnection of patients undergoing cryoablation and/or radiofrequency ablation: results from the cryo versus RF trial. J Atr Fibrillation . 2018; 11 ( 3 ). doi:10.4022/jafib.2072.   Google Scholar
• Wiegand M, Eagan R, Karimov R, Lin L, Larson H, Figueiredo A. Global declines in vaccine confidence from 2015 to 2022: a large-scale retrospective analysis. Preprints with The Lancet . 2023. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4438003.   Google Scholar
• Back to Top

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations. Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.

• People also read
• Recommended articles

To cite this article:

Download citation, your download is now in progress and you may close this window.

• Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you
• Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location
• Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results
• Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research

Login or register to access this feature

Register now or learn more

Vol. 24 No. 1 (2024)

Research article, research productivity and citation impact of nigerian academic pharmacists: a cross-sectional study, students’ performance and perceptions of mock trials as a teaching and assessment activity over three years at two institutions, telepharmacy module in clinical pharmacy clerkship: drug-related problem assessment and student reflections, antibiotic knowledge assessment questionnaire in undergraduate pharmacy students: a rasch analysis of validity evidence, stakeholder perspectives on the need for professional education and competence in pharmacovigilance in zambia: a cross-sectional survey, non-virtual simulation training and patient simulation existing for pharmacy students: a scoping review, learning experiences, preference and perception of undergraduate pharmacy students in nigeria, an investigation of academic resilience, resilience, and empathy in pharmacy students: implications for pharmacy education, quantitative evaluation of problem-based learning outcomes on student pharmacists’ patient care process in japan, walking the mile - fostering diabetes self-management and psychosocial skills among pharmacy students through a hybrid advanced diabetes certificate elective course, utilising pharmacy students to extend academic detailing services focused on naloxone and opioid overdose education, comparison of student pharmacists’ academic performance with and without required attendance in a pharmacotherapy course, defining evidence requirements for a development framework for pharmacists (dfp) in community pharmacy practice, implementing a longitudinal poster project to engage pharmacy students beyond the classroom in a foundational sciences course, a cross-sectional study of the current situation with therapeutic drug monitoring in thailand: requirements, challenges and the role of educational institutions, pharmacy preceptors’ knowledge, perceptions, and experiences with interprofessional education and practice, exploring student perceptions: factors influencing academic performance in a school of pharmacy in nigeria, social media addiction, depression and life satisfaction in turkish pharmacy students: a correlational study, design and evaluation of a tool to assess the impact of interprofessional education on the development of pharmacy professional competencies, a cross-sectional study to assess knowledge, attitudes, and risk perceptions of doctor of pharmacy students regarding asthma, student perspectives on peer education using a virtual platform to enhance advanced pharmacy practice experiences (appe), vet&pharm pilot: exploring interprofessional communication in pharmacy and veterinary students, a call to strengthen medication therapy management training in the kenyan pharmacy undergraduate curriculum: feedback from a snapshot of the knowledge and practices among pharmacists in diverse disciplines, impact of gamification strategies applied to an institutional pharmacy department education, impact of curricular and institutional factors on pharm.d. students' naplex success: a comprehensive analysis of us pharmacy programmes, development of new training programmes for thai community pharmacists using the theory of training needs analysis, building capacity for drug development process in africa‒a workable model, results from a global pharmacy leadership needs assessment: opportunities to advance pharmacy leadership, the effect of different gamification designs on pharmacy and pharmacy technician students, telepharmacy knowledge, attitude, and experience among pharmacy students in indonesia: a cross-sectional study, barriers and enablers of medication safety: a qualitative study from public hospitals in kaduna state, nigeria, cohort assessment of medical and pharmacy student interprofessional attitudes at an academic medical centre from baseline to programme completion, factors influencing career orientation of graduating pharmacy students in can tho, vietnam, bridging the theory-practice gap in pharmacy education using an authentic learning approach: a cross-sectional study, cardiovascular risk assessment of the general population at a community pharmacy setting, knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards hepatitis b infection among pharmacy students: a cross-sectional study in jordan, does one size fit all a survey of preceptor perceptions and experiences with remote rotations, development and a validation study of comprehensive prescription writing rubrics for medical students, what denotes progression in laboratory learning analysing a pharmaceutical bachelor programme, assessment of pharmacy students’ anxiety towards graduation research during their undergraduate degree in saudi arabia, impact of an interprofessional course on pharmaconomists and other health professions students: a qualitative approach, listener, member, and advisor perspectives regarding a pharmacy podcast student organisation, pharmacy students’ perceptions of computer-based simulation in light of the rise of online learning, exploring the relationship between e-health literacy and online health information-seeking behaviour among pharmacy students in indonesia, programme description, comprehensive disease state reviews: a guide to live and virtual implementation in a therapeutics course, a synergistic faculty leadership collaboration in developing, implementing, and evaluating a doctor of pharmacy curriculum, using an electronic portfolio system to create simulated electronic medical records for pharmacy student skills application, a systematic review on the effectiveness of case-based learning (cbl) in the undergraduate pharmacy programme, medicine formulary writing for hospitals: a systematic review on development, approval, dissemination, and review, developed by.

Part of the PKP Publishing Services Network

• Bibliography
• More Referencing guides Blog Automated transliteration Relevant bibliographies by topics
• Automated transliteration
• Relevant bibliographies by topics
• Referencing guides

Pharmacy’s role in a modern health continuum

Introduction.

Developing a health care system that puts people at the center of their own care and uses all available resources as effectively as possible has become a consistent goal of most governments. Achieving this goal requires different health professionals to work in collaboration with each other to meet the health needs of patients. In order for that to happen, governments must work with all key professional groups to use all available resources of the system most effectively and, importantly, pharmacists must be recognized as the professional that coordinates drug therapy management. In addition, governments must put in place policies and a regulatory and funding environment that facilitates team-based care and acknowledges and supports the professional competencies of all health professions. These basic points were made in a White Paper prepared for the Alberta Minister of Health. This article, derived from that paper, was prepared to help pharmacists and other pharmacy organizations understand the critical steps needed for individuals and the health system to fully experience and benefit from pharmacists’ skills and services.

Progress has been made

Much has already been achieved by pharmacy and governments working together to optimize system outcomes through improved coordination of drug therapies and the use of care plans to support patient outcomes. There have also been advances in regulation, education and training, testing of new models of care and participation in interprofessional initiatives and in electronic health systems. For example, in 2007, legislation was enacted in Alberta that provided pharmacists with a new scope of practice and entitled them to adapt prescriptions initiated by other prescribers and initiate drug therapy in an emergency. In addition, pharmacists who meet specific requirements can administer drugs by injection, order laboratory tests and can be granted additional independent prescribing privileges. Similar changes are taking place in other jurisdictions around the world. Technician regulation is another example that has fostered an optimization of the pharmacists’ role in direct patient care, as technicians assume greater responsibility for distribution activities.

Despite legislative changes, more is required for the system and patients to benefit fully. Pharmacy education continues to evolve to better prepare pharmacists for their roles and responsibilities in an increasingly complex health care environment with advanced patient health needs. Another important factor is the pharmacists themselves. Rosenthal et al. 1 reported in 2010 on the reluctance of pharmacists to take on additional responsibilities, concluding that pharmacist personality traits, including a lack of confidence, fear of new responsibilities, paralysis in the face of ambiguity, need for approval and risk aversion, are at least in part responsible. However, the significant increase in uptake of new responsibilities in Alberta over the past year indicates that a tipping point may have been reached. Overall, the ability of pharmacists to improve patient care and decrease costs has been tested and proven many times. 2 , 3 The future of pharmacy practice clearly lies in the value of the clinical decisions made by pharmacists with each patient encounter.

Pharmacists—The experts in drug therapy management

All people who take medications are at risk of actual or potential drug therapy problems. These problems are a significant source of morbidity and mortality when left undetected and unresolved and drive huge costs across the health system. As drug therapy experts, pharmacists provide drug therapy management services built around a partnership between the pharmacist, the patient (or his or her caregiver), physicians and other members of a patient’s health care team. The goals of these services are to identify and resolve actual or potential drug therapy problems for patients and to promote the safe and effective use of medications and enable patients to achieve positive, targeted therapy outcomes. The medication management framework includes the following:

Assessment: The pharmacist assesses each patient through observation, dialogue and consideration of clinical indicators. Treatment alternatives are assessed for appropriateness, effectiveness and safety (including interactions), to prevent and resolve medication-related problems.

Care plans: The pharmacist creates a plan in consultation with the patient and, when necessary, other members of the health care team. The care plan includes goals and actions to achieve the patient’s personal health goals through optimal drug therapy. Actions include patient and/or caregiver education about chronic disease, writing a prescription to continue care, initiating new treatment and disease prevention such as immunization and lifestyle modification programs. Care plans also include medication support systems such as compliance packaging and medication reminders.

Monitoring compliance and evaluating effectiveness: The pharmacist monitors the patient’s compliance with and response to drug therapy through regular follow-ups. These allow for progress evaluation and support and early detection of adverse effects, drug misuse or abuse.

Pharmacists must be part of person-centred care

Key barriers must be overcome to shift from a mind-set of “Getting the Right Drug to Each Patient” to “Getting the Drug Therapy Right for Each Patient” and to reap the benefits of fully integrating a pharmacist into a person’s health care team. These barriers include the following:

Governance models: It has been reported that 70% of hospital beds are occupied by people with chronic illnesses. 4 Pharmacists are repeatedly asked to cooperate in care delivery and are doing so on many fronts. But the inclusion of pharmacists in governance models for care delivery has been limited. Similarly, at a local level, community pharmacists need to be more involved in primary care teams.

Information management systems: Improved information management systems that support both drug therapy management and drug dispensing are needed. The lack of such systems impedes the coordination of care, informed decision making and workflow, contributing to less than optimal care and increased cost.

Funding: Funding entities and pharmacists must work together to develop an economic model for pharmacy that supports the behaviours and outcomes that the health system needs and wants. The right balance needs to be achieved as the focus shifts from drug dispensing-related incentives to payment for drug therapy management in various settings and models of care. An acceptable economic model must address the principles of patient-focused, team-based care and integrate pharmacists and other health professionals across a sustainable health system. Overall, funding should follow the patient, not the provider, so that financial and other incentives are to optimize care.

Pharmacists are uniquely positioned to coordinate system-wide drug management

Many patients interact with the health system at multiple points. Medication therapy may be started, altered or adjusted at any point along this continuum of care by multiple providers. But pharmacists are the health professionals with the best potential to effectively coordinate medication across the continuum. In particular, community-based pharmacists are accessible and uniquely positioned to support a continuum of primary care, the challenges of living with chronic disease, assisting people to remain in their homes as they age and assisting people living with mental illness or chronic diseases.

Pharmacists are some of the most easily accessible members of a person’s health care team. Better coordination of this accessibility can help ensure that patients get the treatments they need, when and where they need them. In addition, better coordination and monitoring improves care, reduces duplication of services, decreases emergency room visits and hospital admissions, helps prevent abuse/misuse of medications and reduces the risk of drug therapy problems. All of these outcomes will save the system money.

It is estimated that 12% of emergency department visits are due to drug-related adverse events. 5 In addition, the probability of admission to a hospital is significantly higher among patients who had a drug-related visit. 4 Pharmacists are the health care team member with the most complete drug therapy knowledge, and they are prepared to use that information and act as the key coordinator of drug therapies. This is particularly useful with complex patients who have multiple prescribers and more than one condition requiring treatment. It is also notable that pharmacists see a significant number of patients more often than other members of the health team. Changes in conditions can thus be detected sooner, including instances where patients would benefit from better adherence to their treatment plan. This can be particularly beneficial if quickly flagged and shared with the health care team.

Actions to accelerate system-wide drug therapy management

Some advances have been made to better enable pharmacists to contribute to patient care, but more is needed to optimize the potential of these changes. We recommend the following practical and achievable actions:

• Governments recognize pharmacists as the health system’s drug management experts
• Health systems support the role of pharmacists as coordinators of drug therapy management in all settings within and across care delivery models
• Pharmacists are included in the governance and delivery of team-based, interdisciplinary models of care
• Integrated information management systems are implemented that enable pharmacists to coordinate and manage drug therapies in cooperation with other health professionals
• A balanced funding model be developed for pharmacy services, to support coordinated person-focused care by aligning clinical practices with desired patient and health system outcomes

Conclusions

In most countries, existing health care systems do not optimize the practices of all health professionals and cost an increasing amount without comparable increases in quality and accessibility. Numerous proposals have been made on how to address these shortcomings. We suggest that by taking actions to better integrate pharmacists into the health care system, government priorities of person-centred care, continuing care, mental health and chronic disease management will gain significant traction. Specifically, there will be improvements in access and quality through accelerating the development of innovative team-based models of care, enhancing the coordination of drug therapy management across the health system and recognizing and promoting opportunities to access the health system through community-based pharmacists. Sustainability will be improved by containing system-level costs as a result of better-coordinated drug therapy, leading to decreased redundancy and better patient outcomes. ■

Acknowledgments

Thanks go to other members of the team who created the original White Paper: Ian Creurer, Anjli Acharya, Eric Holt, Valerie Kalyn, Neil Cameron and Gail Hufty.

• Top 200 Universities in the World
• Top 200 Universities in North America
• Top 200 Universities in Latin America
• Top 200 Universities in Europe
• Top 200 Universities in Africa
• Top 200 Universities in Asia
• Top 50 Universities in Oceania
• Top 200 English-speaking Universities
• Top 200 Spanish-speaking Universities
• Top 200 Arabic-speaking Universities
• Top 200 Universities on Facebook
• Top 200 Universities on Twitter
• Top 200 Universities on Instagram
• Top 200 Universities on YouTube
• Top religiously affiliated Universities
• Universities in North America
• Universities in Latin America
• Universities in Europe
• Universities in Africa
• Universities in Asia
• Universities in Oceania
• A-Z Guide to University Programs, Courses and Degrees
• University Guides and Articles
• Universities on Facebook
• Universities on Twitter
• Universities on Instagram
• Universities on YouTube
• Universities on TikTok
• Universities on LinkedIn
• Free online courses by OEG Universities
• Higher Education-related Organizations
• Directory of University Libraries
• Religiously Affiliated Universities
• Higher Education Glossary
• A-Z list of World Universities

Novgorod State University

Publish your uniRank University Ranking ™ <!-- uniRank University Ranking -- > <iframe src ="https://www.4icu.org/reviews/rankings/university-ranking-4057.htm" width="150" height="80" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" > </iframe > <!-- end -- >

Founded in 1993, the Novgorod State University is a non-profit public higher education institution located in the small city of Veliky Novgorod (population range of 50,000-249,999 inhabitants), Novgorod Oblast. Officially recognized by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, Novgorod State University (NovSU) is a medium-sized (uniRank enrollment range: 8,000-8,999 students) coeducational Russian higher education institution. Novgorod State University (NovSU) offers courses and programs leading to officially recognized higher education degrees such as bachelor's degrees in several areas of study. See the uniRank degree levels and areas of study table below for further details. NovSU also provides several academic and non-academic facilities and services to students including a library, sports facilities, as well as administrative services.

University Snapshot

Selectivity

University Identity

University Location

Search Engine

Fields of study / degree levels, introduction.

What is the difference between comprehensive/generalist and specialized universities in terms of the range of fields of study they offer, degree levels available and academic and carreer paths pros and cons? Read our guide article about generalist and specialized universities to learn more.

Fields of Study and Degree Levels Matrix

The following Novgorod State University's Fields of Study/Degree Levels Matrix is divided into 6 main fields of study and 4 levels of degrees, from the lowest undergraduate degree to the highest postgraduate degree. This matrix aims to help quickly identify Novgorod State University's academic range and degree level offering.

This University offers courses in at least one of the following subjects:

• Applied Arts
• Museum Studies
• Performing Arts
• Religion and Theology
• Visual Arts
• Other Arts & Humanities Studies
• Accounting / Finance
• Anthropology / Archaeology
• Business / Commerce / Management
• Communication and Media Studies
• Development Studies
• Library and Information Science
• Physical Education / Sport Science
• Political and International Studies
• Social Policy / Public Administration
• Social Work
• Sociology / Psychology
• Tourism / Hospitality
• Other Business & Social Science Studies
• Aboriginal / Indigenous People Studies
• African Studies
• American & Caribbean Studies
• Ancient and Modern Languages
• Asian Studies
• English Studies
• European Studies
• French Studies
• Germanic Studies
• Indian / South Asian Studies
• Italian Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Portuguese Studies
• Russian / Eastern European Studies
• Spanish Studies
• Other Language & Cultural Studies
• Anaesthesia
• Biomedical Science
• Dermatology
• Medicine / Surgery
• Natural / Alternative Medicine
• Obstetrics / Gynaecology
• Optometry / Ophthalmology
• Orthopaedics
• Otorhinolaryngology
• Radiography
• Speech / Rehabilitation / Physiotherapy
• Other Medical & Health Studies
• Aeronautical Engineering
• Agricultural Engineering
• Architectural Engineering
• Biomedical Engineering
• Chemical Engineering
• Civil and Environmental Engineering
• Computer and IT Engineering
• Electronic and Electrical Engineering
• General Engineering
• Geological Engineering
• Industrial Engineering
• Mechanical / Manufacturing Engineering
• Mining and Metallurgical Engineering
• Other Engineering Studies
• Agriculture / Forestry / Botany
• Aquaculture / Marine Science
• Architecture
• Biology / Biochemistry / Microbiology
• Computer / Information Technology
• Energy / Environmental Studies
• Food Science
• Mathematics / Statistics
• Neuroscience
• Pharmacy / Pharmacology
• Textiles and Fibre Science
• Zoology / Veterinary Science
• Other Science & Technology Studies

Notice : please contact or visit the university website for detailed information on Novgorod State University's areas of study and degree levels currently offered; the above matrix may not be complete or up-to-date.

Programs and Courses

Courses and programs.

Click here to explore a list of Novgorod State University courses and programs or, if not available yet, search for them with our Search Engine powered by Google. We are constantly adding university courses and programs worldwide with the cooperation of university representatives.

You can also explore our new A-Z Guide to 8,100 University Programs, Courses and Degrees to learn more about study outlines and typical duration, tuition ranges, career prospects, salary expectations of each course/program/degree.

Tuition Fees

Yearly tuition fees refers to the amount of money that a student is charged by a University for one academic year of full-time study. Read our guide article about tuition fees and financial aid options to learn more.

Yearly Tuition Fees Range Matrix

Tip: search for Novgorod State University's tuition fees with the uniRank Search Engine

Notice : please contact the university's Admission Office for detailed information on Novgorod State University's yearly tuition fees which apply to your specific situation and study interest; tuition fees may vary by program, citizenship/residency, study mode (i.e. face to face or online, part time or full time), as well as other factors. The above matrix is indicative only and may not be up-to-date.

Applying for admission is the first step towards achieving students' academic and career goals and accessing the many opportunities and resources that a university has to offer. Read our " Introduction to University Admissions " article to learn more.

Admission Information

uniRank publishes below some basic Novgorod State University's admission information.

Gender Admission

This institution admits Men and Women (coed).

Admission Selection

Not reported

Admission Rate

Novgorod State University's acceptance rate range is not reported.

International Students Admission

International students are welcome to apply for admission at this institution.

Admission Office

Tip: search for Novgorod State University's admission policy with the uniRank Search Engine

Notice : admission policy and acceptance rate may vary by areas of study, degree level, student nationality or residence and other criteria. Please contact Novgorod State University's Admission Office for detailed information on their admission selection policy and acceptance rate; the above information may not be complete or up-to-date.

Size and Profile

University size and profile can be important factors to consider when choosing a university. Here are some potential reasons why University size and profile can affect students when choosing a university .

uniRank publishes below some major size and profile indicators for Novgorod State University.

Student Enrollment

Novgorod State University has an enrollment range of 8,000-8,999 students making it a medium-sized institution.

Academic Staff

This institution has a range of 800-899 academic employees (Faculty).

Control Type

Novgorod State University is a public higher education institution.

Entity Type

Novgorod State University is a non-profit higher education institution.

Campus Setting

Academic calendar, religious affiliation.

Novgorod State University does not have any religious affiliation.

Facilities and Services

What are the most common University facilities and services? Read our two guide articles about University Facilities and University Services to learn more.

University Facilities

uniRank provides below an overview of Novgorod State University's main facilities:

University Library

This institution has a physical Library.

University Housing

Sport facilities/activities.

This institution features sporting facilities and organizes sports activities for its students.

University Services

uniRank provides below an overview of Novgorod State University's main services:

Financial Aid

Study abroad, distance learning, academic counseling, career services.

Notice : please contact or visit the university website for detailed information on Novgorod State University's facilities and services; the information above is indicative only and may not be complete or up-to-date.

Recognition and Accreditation

There are different types of legal recognition and quality assessment of higher education institutions around the world, depending on the country and its legal and higher education system... read our article about university accreditation and recognition to learn more.

Institutional Recognition or Accreditation

Novgorod State University is legally recognized and/or institutionally accredited by: Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation

Specialized or Programmatic Accreditations

Not available; please use the Feedback/Error report form at the end of this page to submit a list of Novgorod State University's official programmatic or specialized accreditations. If you are an official representative of this university you can also claim and update this entire university profile free of charge (UPDATE ALL).

Tip: search for Novgorod State University's accreditations with the uniRank Search Engine

Important : the above section is intended to include only those reputable organizations (e.g. Ministries or Departments of Higher Education) that have the legal authority to officially charter, license, register or, more generally, recognize Novgorod State University as a whole (institutional legal recognition), accredit the institution as a whole (institutional accreditation) or accredit its specific programs/courses (programmatic accreditation).

Memberships and Affiliations

University memberships and affiliations to external organizations can be important for several reasons... read our article about university affiliations and memberships to learn more.

Affiliations and Memberships

Not available; please use the Feedback/Error report form at the end of this page to submit a list of Novgorod State University's official affiliations and memberships to higher education-related organizations. If you are an official representative of this university you can also claim and update this entire university profile free of charge (UPDATE ALL).

Academic Structure

Academic divisions can provide valuable insights into the range of fields of study and disciplines a University focuses on and the institution's level of specialization. Comprehensive or Generalist Universities typically offer a wide range of academic programs and have many academic divisions and subdivisions across different disciplines, while Specialized Universities tend to focus on a narrower range of programs within a specific field or industry and have fewer academic divisions and a simplified organizational structure. Read our guide article " Understanding Academic Divisions in Universities - Colleges, Faculties, Schools " to learn more about academic divisions and typical university organizational structures.

Not available; please use the Feedback/Error report form to submit a list of Novgorod State University's official first-level academic divisions. If you are an official representative you can also claim and update this entire university profile free of charge (UPDATE ALL).

Social Media

Social media can be a powerful tool for Universities to communicate with current students, alumni, faculty, staff and the wider community. But how can social media be important for prospective students? Read our article about the importance of Social Media for universities and prospective students to learn more.

uniRank publishes brief reviews, rankings and metrics of some Novgorod State University's social media channels as a starting point for comparison and an additional selection tool for potential applicants.

X (Twitter)

Novgorod State University's main LinkedIn profile

Free Online Courses

Open education global.

This higher education institution is not a member of the Open Education Global (OEGlobal) organization that is developing, implementing and supporting free open education and free online courses. View a list of Open Education Global members by country .

Wikipedia Article

Novgorod State University's Wikipedia article

Country Featured Universities

Unlock your University's potential: spotlight your Institution on UniRank for leads, local recognition and branding. Enquiry now to feature your University here .

Related Resources

Discover uniRank rankings and reviews of all Universities in Russia Search for courses, scholarships and much more anywhere in the world with the uniRank's World Universities Search Engine Read our university guides and articles including:

• A-Z Guide to 8,100 University Courses, Degrees and Programs
• Where is higher education free?
• What are University Rankings?
• 2023 Guide and Review of World University Rankings

Discover uniRank's world's largest directories of higher education related organizations and university libraries Learn definitions, jargon and acronyms with the uniRank's A-Z Higher Education Glossary

Feedback, Errors and Update

We appreciate your feedback and error reports. Novgorod State University's official representatives can claim this institution and request to update this entire university profile free of charge by clicking on UPDATE ALL

Site last updated: Wednesday, 28 August 2024

Disclaimer : please visit Novgorod State University 's official website to review that the information provided above is up-to-date. The uniRank World University Ranking ™ is not an academic ranking and should not be adopted as the main criteria for selecting a higher education organization where to apply for enrollment.

© uniRank since 2005

University rankings, universities by country, universities on social media, more resources.

About | Methodology | Contact | Advertise | Terms | Privacy | Change privacy settings

©uniRank 2005-2024

Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University 2024-25: Admission, Courses, Fees, Ranking etc.

Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University, often called NovSU, is one of the top universities in Russia. It was founded in 1993 from the merger of the Pedagogical and Polytechnic Institutes and later included the Novgorod Agricultural Academy. Yaroslav University is well-known for being one of the best medical universities in Russia for MBBS studies.

Y aroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University consists of seven scientific and educational institutions: Institute of Medical Education, Humanities Institute, Institute of Electronic Information Systems, Institute of Continuous Pedagogical Education, Institute of Digital Economics, Management and Service, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and Polytechnic Institute. Additionally, the university incorporates four vocational colleges: Polytechnic, Humanities, Medical and Economic.

Subscribe to RM Group of Education Newsletter, Get Admission, Fees, Seats etc.

College Summary

Before we finish the college summary, let’s look at the Important information about Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University.

Affiliation and Recognition

These are the renowned bodies who’ve given reputation to the Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University.

• National Medical Commission of India (NMC).
• World Health Organization (WHO).
• The Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sport of the Republic of Russia

Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University faculties vary from one department to another, covering a wide range of disciplines and specialities.

• General Medicine Faculty
• Pediatric Faculty
• Pharmacy Faculty
• Stomatology Faculty
• Preparatory Faculty
• Faculty of Post-Diploma Professional Education
• Faculty of Additional Professional Education

Courses Offered

Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University’s courses feature high-quality medical programs delivered by highly qualified faculty and state-of-the-art infrastructure. The college is renowned for its undergraduate medical programs, particularly the MBBS program.

Admission Procedure

If you want to take Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University Admission, you must qualify for the National Eligibility Entrance Exam (NEET) for Indian Students.

Eligibility Criteria

Russia has consistently been a top choice for international students seeking to pursue Medical Degree Courses. If you are interested in studying MBBS at Novgorod University, please review the eligibility criteria provided by Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University below.

Documents Required

Before securing admission at Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University, ensure that you have all the required documents in order.

• Passport (Minimum 18 months validity).
• 10th Certificate & Mark sheet.
• 12th Certificate & Mark sheet.
• Birth Certificate.
• 10 passport-size Photographs
• Official Invitation letter from the Medical University of Russia.
• Authorization of all documents from the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi.
• Legalization of all documents from the Russian Embassy.
• Bank receipt of 1st Year of Novgorod University fees (required for some Universities).
• HIV test documents.

Fees Structure 2024-25

The fees structure for MBBS at Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University is detailed in this section.

Ranking 2034-25

According to UniRank, the Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University Ranking in Russia and world ranking:

About Novgorod Oblast City

• Novgorod Oblast is a federal subject of Russia (an oblast).
• Its administrative centre is the city of Veliky Novgorod. Some of the oldest Russian cities, including Veliky Novgorod and Staraya Russa, are located in the oblast.
• The historical monuments of Veliky Novgorod and its surroundings have been declared UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Contact Details

Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University Russia Address:  Bol’shaya Sankt-Peterburgskaya Ulitsa, 41, 3411 Ofis 4 Etazh, Veliky Novgorod, Novgorodskaya oblast’, Russia, 173003 Website:  https://portal.novsu.ru/

Frequently Asked Questions ( FAQs)

Where is yaroslav-the-wise novgorod state university located.

Bol’shaya Sankt-Peterburgskaya Ulitsa, 41, 3411 Ofis, 4 Etazh, Veliky Novgorod, Novgorodskaya oblast’, Russia, 173003

What scholarships and grants are available to students?

Various scholarships and service grants are available to deserving students. The Study Now, Pay Later Plan is also available case-to-case basis.

Does Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University accept transferees?

Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University accept transferees on a case-to-case basis.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

2 thoughts on “Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University 2024-25: Admission, Courses, Fees, Ranking etc.”

is this collage is proved by [NMC] or not?

Yes, Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University is approved by the NMC.

Get Admission to Abroad Colleges with up to 100% Scholarship.